E&Ps With Something to Prove

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

Proved reserves are one of the murkiest areas of oil & gas company accounting. If you start poking around the various E&Ps' annual reports, you'll quickly see that not all reserves are created equal.

In most basic terms, proved reserves are hydrocarbons that an E&P can reasonably expect to produce at some point in the future, based on current prices and oilfield costs. With geologic, technological, and economic factors all playing a part, there is some art to reserve estimation, in addition to all the science. This is why firms bring in specialists like Netherland, Sewell & Associates to audit their internal calculations.

The proved reserves category is further divided into proved developed and proved undeveloped reserves. The difference between the two is that proved developed reserves have wells and equipment in place. Proved developed producing reserves (PDPs) are obviously the most objective, whereas proved undeveloped reserves (PUDs) have the most to, er, prove.

Who's got a PUD problem?
When scanning E&P annual reports recently, I noticed enormous variance in PUD bookings as a percentage of total proved reserves. Here is a sampling:


PUDs / Total Proved Reserves

Cimarex Energy (NYSE: XEC  )


Devon Energy (NYSE: DVN  )


Chesapeake Energy (NYSE: CHK  )


Southwestern Energy (NYSE: SWN  )


Carrizo Oil & Gas (Nasdaq: CRZO  )


GMX Resources (Nasdaq: GMXR  )


ATP Oil & Gas (Nasdaq: ATPG  )


On the low end of the spectrum, we see Cimarex and Devon, two independents that were forced to record huge non-cash asset writedowns, based on year-end 2008 prices.

When Devon reported its impairment, I definitely overreacted. Though I gave a more balanced assessment of the firm's accounting treatment the following day, I'd like to formally renounce my comments on the quality of Devon's reserve booking practices. The small percentage of PUDs booked by these firms is a strong point in their favor, and highlights the distortion caused by year-end pricing (a reporting convention wisely being phased out by the SEC).

In the middle of the pack, we have Chesapeake and Southwestern. There are many other E&Ps with PUDs in this general range, which I would consider to be typical of firms pursuing a fairly balanced blend of acquisition and drillbit growth.

Next, there's Carrizo, whose PUDs, I should point out, have fallen from 60% in 2006 and 53% in 2007. Still, the company identifies its PUD bookings as "significant."

So what does that say about the last two?
Without looking any deeper, it would seem that both GMX and ATP belong in the PUD penalty box. A closer analysis reveals significant differences between the firms, however.

In the case of ATP, the Rodney Dangerfield of the deepwater, I wondered aloud about the short case back in September. Skepticism about the firm's reserve bookings could be a factor there, though it must surely take a distant second place to the above-average debt load that the firm's been dutifully working off.

To write off ATP for its unusually high amount of proved undeveloped reserves would be to ignore the firm's unique business strategy, in my view. Acquiring other people's PUDs and bringing them into production is literally all that ATP does. These relatively large offshore developments take a fair bit of time to bring online. As a consequence, ATP has a lot of undeveloped reserves waiting on deck. Given the firm's 98% development success rate since inception in 1991, I'm inclined to believe that ATP isn't getting in over its head with these offshore reserve bookings.

As for GMX, I have some concerns. Back before the Haynesville shale hoopla of 2008, GMX was almost exclusively focused on the Cotton Valley sand play, a shallower target stacked above the Haynesville in East Texas. In 2008, 92% of the firm's wells targeted the Cotton Valley, and the play accounts for over 98% of GMX's proved undeveloped drilling locations.

Booking a relatively large amount of PUDs, as GMX has done over the past few years, effectively understates finding and development (F&D) costs (exploration and development costs divided by total reserve additions). GMX boasts of "best in class" F&D costs, but this ignores the roughly $560 million in costs that the firm estimates it would have to incur to develop these reserves. To put that cost in perspective, GMX recently projected discretionary cash flow of roughly $50 million in 2009.

Another issue with this pile of Cotton Valley PUDs is that the economics of this tight gas play have deteriorated significantly, as noted by other operators like EXCO Resources. GMX has, as a result, totally refocused on Haynesville/Bossier development, directing 98% of its 2009 budget to this new play. To claim so many proved reserves in the Cotton Valley, while current economics seem to dictate nearly complete avoidance of the play, appears aggressive.

Chesapeake and Cimarex are Motley Fool Inside Value recommendations. See if the premium service proves its worth with a free 30-day trial.

Fool contributor Toby Shute doesn't have a position in any company mentioned. Check out his CAPS profile or follow his articles using Twitter or RSS. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Read/Post Comments (0) | Recommend This Article (11)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

Be the first one to comment on this article.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 869397, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/26/2016 5:46:43 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 18,199.33 30.06 0.17%
S&P 500 2,139.43 -3.73 -0.17%
NASD 5,250.27 -33.13 -0.63%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

12/31/1969 7:00 PM
ATPAQ.DL $0.00 Down +0.00 +0.00%
ATP Oil & Gas Corp CAPS Rating: ***
CHK $6.00 Down -0.11 -1.80%
Chesapeake Energy CAPS Rating: ***
CRZO $36.01 Down -1.05 -2.83%
Carrizo Oil and Ga… CAPS Rating: ***
DVN $40.20 Down -0.47 -1.16%
Devon Energy CAPS Rating: ****
GMXRQ.DL $0.00 Down +0.00 +0.00%
GMX Resources, Inc… CAPS Rating: *
SWN $10.46 Down -0.30 -2.79%
Southwestern Energ… CAPS Rating: ***
XEC $133.72 Down -0.18 -0.13%
Cimarex Energy CAPS Rating: **